应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 交流 » 稿子拒了，一个审稿人，散BB求分析
21/1返回列表
查看: 2839  |  回复: 53
查看全部回帖 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

lucktime

木虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 稿子拒了，一个审稿人，散BB求分析

General comments:

Good introduction and use of relevant references. The site description is also good and the methodology used is well described. However, there is not much new here in terms of techniques used. More importantly, the analysis of the data is primarily of the type "curve-plotting" with very little detailed analysis. The data seems to be of good quality and as such, I feel that the authors could have done more with it, e.g.,***省略, etc. The discussion chapter is very general and deals with issues that are not shown in the results cahpter, and sometimes not supported by the data. The conclusions presented are also mostly qualiative and (in some cases) not clearly supported by the data presented. Recommendations (both practical for the mine site as well as for continued work) are lacking.


Some additional specific comments:  ,***省略


EDITOR'S DECISION:

The editor suggest rejection with resubmission. The dataset and case study are interesting but the general analysis and discussion is poor and not novel. More could be done also to provide to the reader some clear statement about what it is adviced or what can be done or not to monitor, study and forecast the evolution
So the authors should take their time to improve the manuscript for a resubmission to the journal
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴
1楼 2011-10-08 11:39:44
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wenpinggeng

木虫 (正式写手)
★
lucktime(金币+1):谢谢参与
同感同感！
回复此楼
51楼2011-10-09 16:25:35
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 lucktime 的主题更新
21/1返回列表
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭